6/8, 8:10a: Wow, read this major lambast of the fantastically hypocritical Amanda Marcotte at The Other McCain, which came to my attention via this piece at The American Power blog.

6/7, 7:42p: What’s more important, abortion or equal rights for women? Though they would have you believe otherwise, liberal feminists do not consider the 2 synonymous. And to answer the question, in case you didn’t know, it’s abortion.

But because Clinton supported abortion, feminists excused the fact that he clearly used his authority to sexually exploit a young woman. It helped that he was at the time the most powerful man in the world, although this fact only spotlighted the national security threat feminists also ignored of his being placed in a vulnerable position to be blackmailed.

So I’ve been watching with interest to see how feminists would respond to Weinergate, another example of a powerful man exploiting young women in this case he wasn’t even positive were legal adults, and displaying almost inconceivable stupidity in the process. And they did not surprise. Feminists for Choice was particularly frank, if not pathetic:

In situations like these, I think feminists are in a bit of a hard place. As women, we’re sort of grossed out and annoyed by the fact that he would send anyone a (hopefully solicited) picture of his junk, but ultimately, I think we realize that it’s just another part of the role that patriarchy has created for men….

There is the bigger issue at hand, here…. Anthony Weiner is a progressive beacon in a House of Representatives full of a bunch of Tea Party wackos – we need him there.

Weiner has a 100% pro-choice rating from NARAL, a history of voting for women’s issues, LGBT issues, and just progressive politics in general. Again, progressives and women need Rep. Weiner in the House.

Keeping abortion legal, that’s what it’s all about for liberal feminists. F4C gave this example of Weiner’s “badassery,” which was really an appalling example of jerkassery:

It was refreshing to see readers challenge Feministing for making jokes about Weiner’s sexual misconduct, one noting, “This gives anti-feminists tons of fodder.” Indeed, although we’re actually the real feminists, supporting equality for all women, born and preborn.

In a piece (“The case for tolerating left-wing lotharios”), which pro-abortion Amanda Marcotte linked to with a tweet of approval, Slate excused the double standard MSM shows between conservative and liberal politicians caught with their pants on the ground, and again, it’s mostly about abortion:

Why didn’t this salacious, potentially career-destroying story generate the same insta-circus as “Craigslist Congressman” Chris Lee’s beefcake photos or any one of the many GOP sex scandals over the last several years? It’s due in part to the journalistic torpor of the long holiday weekend, but – let’s be honest – it’s also because he’s an outspoken liberal. And that’s not a bad thing….

Conservatives might cry foul over the double standard… but it’s justified. There’s the low-hanging fruit of hypocritical “family values” zealots who get caught…. But it’s more than that. In the case of Republicans, who have been waging a fierce legislative war on women, they’re not just screwing around on their wives, they’re screwing over millions of American women and families by eliminating reproductive freedom, undermining equal pay laws, and restricting access to affordable health and child care.

For those on the left, like Rep. Weiner, it’s easier to disregard their potential sexual missteps as a character flaw limited to the home life. In his career as a lawmaker, he has been an emphatic advocate for women. (NARAL gave him a 100% rating.)….

That’s not to say, of course, that illegal sexual conduct… should go unpunished. But when it comes to garden-variety consenting-adults fare among left-leaning pols, I can understand why some reporters might want to just step away.

That 100% NARAL approval rating keeps coming up.

Liberal feminists frequently decry the abundance of conservative men who vocally oppose abortion, as if they should have no say.

But they ignore the obvious ulterior motive cads that like Clinton, Edwards, Schwarzenegger, and Weiner have for supporting abortion.

Feminists are as much to blame for the sexual exploitation of women as all the aforementioned.

Do not post private personal information about yourself or others.(ie addresses, phone #s)

Violations will be deleted and you may be banned. Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.

Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.

Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls
to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They
reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.

70 Responses to “Liberal feminists blow off Weiner sex scandal”

Let’s not forget that feminists also blew off the fact that Clinton was accused of everything from exposing himself to rape. Yet they persecuted Clarence Thomas as some drooling sex maniac over what were at worst, some alleged lousy pick up lines.
Where were these champions of women when the women accusing Clinton were trashed as liars, bimboes, pscyhotics, and trailer trash? I never heard anything but a deafening silence.

From what I read it was an exchange of images, not him, ‘a powerful man exploiting young women’. I also read that at least one of the women exchanging images with him was 26, so again, where’s the exploiting?

Rep. Mark Foley sent messages to teenaged house pages, Weiner exchanged photos with various consenting women.

Cad? Ulterior motive? Arnie supported the right of women to choose and obviously he supported that very same right with his housekeeper.

I was recently watching an old program, broadcast in 1989, about the sexual/social changes of the 50’s through the 80’s. They showed how feminists were aggressively, zealously anti-pornography…ardently, fiercely anti-exploitation of women…until guess what? Until adult entertainment businessmen started donating huge sums of money to Planned Parenthood and abortion-advocacy groups.

Oh yes consenting women. Well, what about Clinton being accused of everything from exposing himself to rape? What about Democrat Gerry Studds who actually had sex with a teenage page, and was never tossed out of Congress? Oh, and let’s not forget liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy’s nephew being accused of rape after a nite of romping with Uncle Ted, who most would consider a tad long in the tooth to be romping like a college boy. Thankfully the nephew had Uncle Ted’s milllions, and the silence of feminists. Unfortunately the victim had no prayer against the power and money of the Kennedys, and no support from feminists.
I’ve got to admit Reality that it was hilarious to watch Ted Kennedy, ever the bastion of virtue and respect for women sitting in judgment of Clarence Thomas while he was in the process of bailing his nephew out of a rape charge.

Have Feminists for Choice ever stopped to consider that the reason Weiner has a 100% voting record on abortion is not because he cares about women, but rather because slimebags like him want abortion on demand to stay legal so they can cover up any pregnancies that might result from adulterous affairs, and/or affairs with minors? Regarding the latter, they already know PP will look the other way if a minor is brought in for an abortion. Weiner may have started out with sending dirty photos but it’s likely his behavior would have escalated from there once the titillation wore off.

Who was it that flung most of the accusations at Clinton? That’s right, people whose own infidelities came to light.
Gerry Studds was censured over a dalliance with a page who described the relationship as consensual and not intimidating.
Ted Kennedy’s nephew was accused of rape and the jury took only an hour to acquit him.

The point I was making is that in Weiner’s case there has been no display of behavior that feminists find alarming. He was stupid, not dangerous.
I’m sure the voters will ultimately decide.

Others [Democrats] said it would be impossible to support Mr. Weiner given the outrageous things he had admitted, the likelihood that Republicans would make a target of anyone who came to his defense, and the possibility that some of the women he had contacted were minors.

Thank you, Jill, for spotlighting the hypocrisy and anti-woman agenda of the so-called women’s right champions. They will tolerate the abuse and mistreatment of women, even the exploitation of young girls, as long as they get their abortion “rights.” The only women they truly value are the ones who get abortions. Not the women who choose life for their child, and certainly not the girls in the womb.

You’re right – that Feminists for Choice piece was totally pathetic. Shameful.

The page was 17y/o Reality. Consenual? Surely you would admit a congressman actually having sex with a page is far more serious than texting a page, for which Foley got the boot.

Ted Kennedy’s nephew was accused and it took the jury an hour to acquit him. Well knock me over with a feather. Given the Kennedy millions and power, I’m surprised it took the jury that long. Clarence Thomas was only accused of some lousy pick up lines and look what happened to him! The feminists howled like banshees and persecuted that man with a vengence.

Weiner’s behavior does not alarm feminists. Get real Reality. Its Weiner’s liberal PA agenda, like that of Ted Kennedy’s and Bill Clinton’s that has you feminists again ready to turn a blilnd eye to the most despicable behavior.

I agree with your concept that money and power can have an impact yet in this case it went to trial and the jury were able to decide quite quickly and clearly. Real power and money would have kept the case out of court.

Weiner’s behavior was not ‘despicable’. It was tasteless, it was stupid and it may have been inappropriate. But not despicable. He did not exploit women, they exchanged photos.

So you don’t consider a congressman sending pictures of his/her crotch despicable and totally unbefitting a member of congress? Whatever. You also have no problem with several days of lying and coverup either apparently. But then you feminists had no problem with Bill Clinton sexually assaulting women either.

Real money and power would have kept the Kennedy case out of court? LOL. Are you really this naive Reality? Real money and power enabled yet another Kennedy to abuse a woman and walk away, with the silent blessing of feminists.

Reality, during the press conference yesterday Weiner admitted he couldn’t confirm his phone sex and sexting was with women over 18. The man demonstrated shockingly poor judgment. He has a real problem. He was ripe for blackmail. He was delusional.

I see the liberals are still in denial by my reading here. LOL, sad, sugar coat and defend bad men, never call them out on it… ohhh no no that would be horrible. No matter what a man or woman does, even if they are rapists, serial killers, etc… as long as they publicly support abortion, then you should keep supporting them right?
tsk…tsk
Sigh…. cannot make the blind see.

Sad.

Live in your fantasy worlds liberals-pro-aborts. We will shove reality in your faces soon enough, but don’t worry, you can keep your eyes closed, I hear it is going to be a lot to face ;)

Do you have evidence to demonstrate that Kennedy was guilty? Do you have evidence that money or power was used in this instance to alter the outcome? Can you prove your claim in any way?

Again Jill, I broadly agree. He was an idiot. But we simply don’t know if his pictures/messages went to underage people. They wouldn’t necessarily have needed to be over 18 either. And he didn’t actually touch anyone.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the man is a doofus of the first order. But like I said, I see no reason for feminists to be alarmed.

You don’t find sending crotch shots despicable, even when it is to people you have never met. Even though Jill posted that Weiner admitted he didn’t always know the age of the women/girls he was talking to? They could have been middle school girls for all he knew or apparently cared. We don’t know if sexting and phone sex went to underage girls, well we don’t know if they didn’t either. Apparently the congressman didn’t make certain. If these are your standards Reality, fine.

Well Reality, please tell me what feminists based Clarence Thomas’ assumed guilt on. The word of a woman who claims the incidents occured several years earlier. Now, certainly if feminists will howl like banshees over alleged talking dirty, they will howl about allegations of sexual assault. A glaring double standard here?

But they ignore the obvious ulterior motive cads that like Clinton,Edwards, Schwarzenegger, and Weiner have for supporting abortion.
I’m not defending Weiner but just FYI: a man can’t impregnate a woman with only a picture of his penis, and no one has yet reported actual physical contact between Weiner and the recipients of his messages. It’s therefore a stretch to connect his political support for abortion to his personal conduct.

Ted Haggard, Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner, John F Kennedy, Newt Gingrich, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bob Barr, Warren G Harding, Strom Thurmond, Eliot Spitzer, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Jefferson, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Jim McGreevey, Jim Bakker, Chris Lee, Mark Souder, Eric Massa, Mark Sanford, Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, Gary Condit, Dan Burton, Paul Ingram, Alexander Hamilton, Lonnie Frisbee, Billy James Hargis, Jimmy Swaggert, Peter Popoff, Bob Morehead, Albert Odulele…. The list of men in political and religious positions of power who were caught in everything from inappropriate flirting (Weiner), to fathering children out of wedlock (Jefferson, many) all the way to the assault of children (Odulele, Foley, etc) goes back to the Founding Fathers!. Republican, Democrat, it’s all the same. Some men are just plain bad. I say stop giving them attention and vote them out on the next election.

The liberals are biased toward their own, as are the conservatives. All this mud-slinging is doing no good. Each group is acting hypocritical! I may not be very educated, but I know hypocrisy and muckraking when I see it! Why don’t we concentrate on ignoring the stupid indiscretions (that is personal business), and prosecuting the serious crimes and, I don’t know, stop being partisan when deciding what morals we want in our leaders? Just because someone is a Republican doesn’t mean he is good, and just because someone is a Democrat doesn’t mean he is bad. I am registered unaffiliated because both parties are so ridiculously partisan and bickering that they never get anything done! Aargh! It drives me crazy!

Reality says: June 7, 2011 at 9:05 pm“Yes Jill, I read that too. The possibility. Let’s find out; then if it is the case, throw the book at him. For…um…for…what exactly would the charge be? Exploitation maybe?”

==================================================================

What book would that be?

The feminista manual for mental gymnastics and ideological contortions or ‘101 ways to
get your gal’.

Lisa says: June 7, 2011 at 10:40 pm1. I’m not defending Weiner but just FYI: a man can’t impregnate a woman with only a picture of his penis, and

2. no one has yet reported actual physical contact between Weiner and the recipients of his messages.

3. It’s therefore a stretch to connect his political support for abortion to his personal conduct.”

================================================================
3. Providing protection and funding for child killing are not endorsements of
Weiner’s personal or private conduct. Challenging the integrity of his accusers and lying to his constituents and to the american citizens speak directly to Weiner’s lack of character and absence of good jugement.

2. Do you honestly believe a compulsive creep like this has NOT made unsolicited advances to women he has interacted with on the internet or in person? [Think Bill Clinton. Maybe that will jog your neurons into action.]

1. How about ‘excusing’, but I am fairly certain you will reach ‘defending’ in short order.
The man is an ‘exhibitionist’. He proud of his kosher sausage and does not want to deny any woman he finds attractive the opportunity to gaze upon it.

If you found out your next door neighbor was sending photos of his ‘penis’ to women he met on the net would you just write it off as ‘boys being boys’ and invite him to your next backyard barbecue?

I bet the first question that popped into you mind was: ‘Did he wash his hands before he peeled the potatos and sliced the tomatoes?”

Another thought, maybe less focus on the political leanings of these men and looking for solutions regardless of affiliation? Saying, “Oh, of course Weiner did that because he’s a Democrat” is pretty useless and besides the point, just like when Democrats do it to Republicans.

Actually, in retrospect, that wasn’t a new thought, just an expansion on my former point.

“Is there any particular reason why you feel the need to do your little double-line thingy beyond the box all the time? Making up for some sort of inadequacy perhaps?”
=============================================================

The double line is my way to separate your inadequacies from mine.

Kind of like those concrete barriers that separate the traffic that is flowing in opposite directions. I do drive defensively. I have one of the those gas guzzling bubbamobiles and it gets annoyed at the priuses. A head on or even a rear ender would cause considerable damage to the poodle cars. When you drive a tank you have fiduciary responsibility to take care not to frighten the imports. They have a conmpulsion to roll over in submission and urinate uncontrollably.

You’re right Praxedes, they aren’t ‘sexy’ photos. Poor terminology. Photos of a sexual nature.
Unless I’ve missed something, there weren’t any of his uncovered ‘manhood’? So, still not despicable.
So were the women who exchanged ‘racy’ (is that ok?) photos with him being despicable too?

OK ken, a deliniation. But I think the fact that you feel an innate need to take it further than really necessary says a lot.
Ha! You actually made me laugh, audibly. Punk those Priuses! I drive a small but fast car. Oh, and an large family wagon. Both are 4wd.
Your opinion on british cars is at least 20 years out of date.

Conservatives might cry foul over the double standard… but it’s justified. There’s the low-hanging fruit of hypocritical “family values” zealots who get caught…

In other words, the pro-aborts are saying, “We expect our degenerate pervs to do this! It’s those that feign to have morals that deserve to be mocked not we, who campaign on a platform of immorality!” Yep. It’s better to be a boisterous slimeball wallowing in your own iniquity than someone trying to live a good life who happens to fail.

In case you haven’t noticed its the liberals who will pound their chests in self righteous indignation when its a conservative or a Republican, but maintain a deafening silence when it is one of their own, i.e. Clarence Thomas and Bill Clinton.

You will note that Republicans and conservatives have been dealt with much more harshly, and by their own. Mark Foley had to leave congress, Gerry Studds who actually had sex with a 17y/o page continued his congressional career with little more than a slap on the wrist.

JackBorsch:
This is OT for this thread, but I wanted to be sure you saw the male-specific support groups I posted in the last discussion (1in6 and MaleSurvivor). The conversation went off in a couple different directions, so I couldn’t tell if you’d see them. I don’t know anything about the groups, but I hope one is useful.

“It’s better to be a boisterous slimeball wallowing in your own iniquity than someone trying to live a good life who happens to fail.”

This, of course, assumes that these conservative “family values” politicians who “happen to fail” were ever trying to live a good life in the first place. Most of them probably were not. That’s where the element of hypocrisy comes into play. Everybody fails sometimes, but high-ranking right-wing politicians and other figures who use supposedly traditional moral values in order to acquire power and yet never really embraced those values to begin with are massive hypocrites.

This, of course, assumes that these conservative “family values” politicians who “happen to fail” were ever trying to live a good life in the first place. Most of them probably were not.

I love how you feel qualified to judge that. All we objectively know is that, whether they were striving or not, they chose as public servants to advocate for good and not evil. You advocate for evil- so how are you the standard for who is an who isn’t striving to live a good life when you reject goodness?

That’s where the element of hypocrisy comes into play. Everybody fails sometimes, but high-ranking right-wing politicians and other figures who use supposedly traditional moral values in order to acquire power and yet never really embraced those values to begin with are massive hypocrites.

It’s easy to not be a hipocrite: Just never stand for anything! It’s quite easy for those with no convictions to point out when other people don’t live up to standards they themselves don’t even try to live by.

No convictions, or just convictions you don’t very much like or agree with?
“I do what I want, when I want, no matter who I hurt or kill” is not a conviction, Joan. Convictions typically imply moral restraint, not hedonism.

Were the pro-lifers this upset about Republican, pro-life, pro “family values” David Vitter? Sexting is one thing (and yes, totally creepy in this particular case) but visiting a prostitute (and calling her during his congressional day) is something else. Anybody? The Christian right obviously believes that Vitter’s transgressions don’t interfere with the ability to do his job part of which is to vote for pro-life legislation. He actually received a standing ovation from his fellow Christians when he returned to the Senate after a brief hiatus. Why can’t the same principal obtain here. Oh, right. Wiener is a liberal pro-choice advocate.

BTW, I think that Americans make too much of politicians escapades. As long as they don’t interfere with governing, it shouldn’t be an issue. Of course, if there’s naughty business going on from a practitioner of “family values” (Newt Gingrich?) that’s hypocritical. At least Weiner never preached about what constitutes “morality.”

Thanks! I totally agree. I know some total slimebags who are Republican… and some total slimebags who are Democrats. It’s annoying that people try to say just because someone is a member of a political party, they are more susceptible (spelling?) to moral failures. No, they’re human. It means they mess up.

Besides…. In the case of Anthony Wiener, it wasn’t actual rape or anything. I mean, sure, I still consider that to be infidelity, and it’s gross (he is more creepy than attractive and leaves much to be desired… hehe), but it’s not like he actually slept with people.

Also, so somehow moral indiscretions are worse than legal ones? People get all up-in-arms about sex scandals, but other scandals? Not so much. It’s annoying. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is up to them – though I will say Mr. Wiener was really, really, breathlessly stupid to post those things online.

The conduct is un-becoming of a Representative or Senator – who is representing the government of the United States. Resign – yes – no matter the party. disgusting, despicable, truly stunning. What are these men thinking (of course sex) – especially when they are married? Good golly – is this the mindset that besets people of power? Why can’t we have people of character and honesty be in these offices?

Also – The first news stories to break here did not identify his party at all. when that happens, the guy is usually a Democrat. But no matter his party – the conduct is putting the government official in a position to be blackmailed and that puts our government in jeopardy. This is not just hijinks – this is serious business.

Just because someone is a Republican doesn’t mean he is good, and just because someone is a Democrat doesn’t mean he is bad. I am registered unaffiliated because both parties are so ridiculously partisan and bickering that they never get anything done! Aargh! It drives me crazy!

I love ya, man — my sentiments exactly, which is why I am a dedicated Independent!

Just because someone is a Republican doesn’t mean he is good, and just because someone is a Democrat doesn’t mean he is bad.

I agree wholeheartedly with the first part of this statement, but by virtue or one associating oneself with the party of death does qualify them as bad. I am not a Republican, but I would never identify when a party whose platform is dismembering children.

Mark Foley flirted with a former page. Studds (d) had relations with a current one. Guess which one was pressed to resign?

The worst you could say about Clarence Thomas is that he once had a stack of Playboys. Any conversations he had with Anita Hill was he said / she said. (As it was with William Kennedy Smith, I admit) They were long-time co-workers. When talking about a black porno star, she could have said how terrible the stereotype of black “sexual prowess” was. He could well have joked: ” Oh no, that one’s true!” Would we expect him to admit to that?

Even the affair between Jefferson and his slave is questionable. There is talk his brother was an equally possible candidate for fathering Sally Heming’s children.

There are cads all over. I prefer being on the side that doesn’t just frown upon them, but holds them accountable.

Mary, I think that flashing photos of fractured fetuses in the faces of “total strangers, some of whom may be underage minors” is closer to qualifying as despicable than “sending pictures one’s genitals” is.

Virginia, Breitbart said “I can’t foresee the circumstances” in which he would release the ‘X-rated’ photos.
I know someone who claims to have pictures of a republican congressman doing strange things with animals but he ‘cannot foresee the circumstances’ in which he would release them. That’s decent of him.

The communists thugs that ruled the former soviet union convinced themselves that they were not the ‘evil empire’.

Hard as the ‘expert’ communists tried, and they went to extreme measures, they just could not separate humans from their human nature.

They never could produce even one true ‘new’ man.

Hard as liberal humanist try, and they have gone to extreme measures, they haven’t been able to produce one true ‘new’ man who eschews religion and relies only on reason and logic. Human nature keeps insinuating him/her/it self into the process.

Liberal humanists want to control everyone and everything because they are convinced they are ‘right’ and they know better.

When confronted with their inconsistencies, contradictions and hypocrisy, humanist change the subject or say, “So what?”

Weiner is a case in point.

Even the feministas won’t toss his head over the wall, [figuretively refrerring to a literal account in the ‘book’.] because he votes their way.

That will all change instantly, just as soon as the liberals view Weiner as a liablility.

…”But a man of the hill country of Ephraim, Sheba son of Bichri, has lifted up his hand against King David. Deliver him only, and I will depart from the city. And the woman said, Behold, his head shall be thrown to you over the wall. Then the woman in her wisdom went to all the people. And they cut off the head of Sheba son of Bichri and cast it down to Joab. So he blew the trumpet, and they retired from the city, every man to his own home. And Joab returned to Jerusalem to the king.” [I am sure Weiner is familiar with this account.]

Weiner should have taken a photo of himself with his undies over his head.

Now that would have been an impressive bulge. [Barney Franks would have been sexting him.]

From my observation, Russia is not too distant from the former soviet ‘evil empire’ that you cite. Maybe that’s because of the way they are instituting capitalism? Same with China maybe? Still no ‘dark side’ though.

“they just could not separate humans from their human nature” – what, like many anti-choicers here try to do?
“They never could produce even one true ‘new’ man” – yeah, that either.
Now do you understand why abortion always has, does and will occur?

“they haven’t been able to produce one true ‘new’ man who eschews religion and relies only on reason and logic.” – on what basis do you draw that conclusion?
“Human nature keeps insinuating him/her/it self into the process.” – and?

“When confronted with their inconsistencies, contradictions and hypocrisy, humanist change the subject or say, “So what?” – no, what they are actually saying is ‘why do you need to ask loaded, supposition-filled questions?’

The whole Weiner thing isn’t dramatically different to so many cases that have been mentioned here. Some ‘survived’ the situations better than others for a myriad of reasons. Weiner didn’t do anything which feminists find alarming.

Dunno what the whole piece in italics is supposed to contribute to rational discussion.

I don’t know if most politicians could fit their undies on their heads. Firstly, their heads are so big. Secondly, how do you put something on a head which is so far up an a…

Gee, you don’t think you’re heading into dangerous waters there do you Prince Charming? There are a few examples regarding ‘pro-lifers’ you might not be too pleased to see.”
are they actually pro-lifers or just claim to be?

Feminists wouldn’t forgive Anthony Weiner nor ANY politician for being “the village rapist”. The difference is, folks, that when a member of the House or Senate stands up and uses ~family values~ as their platform to preach hatred against women, homosexuals, non-religious people, etc. it is rather vindicating when it turns out that “family values” only applies to what they’re selling (and trying to force on the rest of us) and not what they’re actually practicing.
Would I be pissed if Anthony Weiner was my husband? 100% Do I care that he got caught doing a stupid thing even though I still agree with his poltiics? Not really. If he ended up being an actually “despicable human being” (i.e. rape, child molester, closet member of the Tea Party) then that would change.
You guys are the absolute MASTERS of seeing things through a lens to further justify feeling the way you feel and it’s so funny to me that you can’t see that.

Derrr, let me get this straight — you DON’T think that committing adultery makes one a “despicable human being”? Why, then, would you be pissed if he were your husband?

Also, your argument seems rather ridiculous. “Democrats think that adultery, porn, and etc. are fine and dandy and proclaim that loudly, so when they mess up it’s fine. But Republicans who claim otherwise are hypocrites and that’s even worse.”

Sorry, I think I’d rather be led by someone who proclaims the Truth, even if he or she doesn’t live up to that Truth, then someone who says that wrong is right and lives accordingly.

And I find it terribly tragic that you see despicable morals as a qualification for office.

To be clear, I don’t think Weiner committed adultery. I also don’t think it’s any of our business… people are people and we ALL make mistakes (even God Fearing Christians). If your husband cheated on you (or sent indiscreet photos of himself to women on the internet) would you damn him to hell, hope he lost his job, and never speak to him again? No, most likely not. You’d get couples counseling, speak to your pastor, and try to work through it.
What Weiner did was an affront to his wife and his marriage, not to his voters. If his wife wants to leave him then that’s fine with me and I can’t blame her but does it affect me? Does it affect the way he votes or represents my political interests? Not. One. Bit.
Also I think it’s pretty High and Mighty to call someone a “despicable human being” and “the most adulterous, philandering, womanizing guy on the planet” for what Weiner did. I hate to say it but if he was on the right you’d all be talking about how he made a mistake and he deserves forgiveness but, you know, you disagree with his politics so he’s the devil incarnate.

So you wouldn’t feel violated or betrayed in any way if your husband send pictures of his genitals to barely-legal teenagers, or even minors?

It is indeed an affront to his voters if he used his official Twitter account, and his work computer, to send porno pics of himself to other women. If the women he tweeted his porno shots to were minors, then he broke the law.

Furthermore, it shows the voters that a man who can’t live up to his marriage vows certainly can’t and won’t bother to live up to the oaths he swore as their representative.

Forgiving Weiner for his mistakes and holding him accountable for them, as well as their consequences, are two entirely different things, Derrr. If my husband acted in such a manner, I’d do BOTH.

I saw some interesting Pew Research poll results. It showed that people would be less likely to vote for someone who didn’t believe in god than for someone who had an affair, smoked dope or had been divorced. Ah, principles.

Also I think it’s pretty High and Mighty to call someone a “despicable human being” and “the most adulterous, philandering, womanizing guy on the planet” for what Weiner did.

Considering I didn’t reference Weiner or call him ANYTHING at all in my post where I said “the most adulterous, philandering, womanizing guy on the planet”, you really don’t have a point here. (Derrrr….. duhhhh….)
Bill Clinton probably fits that profile a bit more, don’t you think? ;)

2 likes

Who Is Jill Stanek?

Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.

The “reversals” also show that the ingestion of medication abortion drugs is never a sure thing when it comes to terminating a pregnancy. While anti-abortion activists tout the alleged “high complication rates” of the process, what they conveniently leave out is that the most common complication is that the patient remains pregnant, and that the protocol needs to be followed up with D&C or vacuum aspiration abortion in order to end the pregnancy….

Why is the “reversal” apparently so successful then? Primarily it is because those who are trying to continue the pregnancy are already in the midst of a failed medication abortion to start with….

“There’s no evidence of any demonstrable effect of the ‘treatment’ these anti-abortion centers are marketing,” Dr. Cheryl Chastine, a provider at South Wind Women’s Center in Wichita, Kansas, said. “The medical literature is quite clear that mifepristone on its own is only about 50 percent effective at ending a pregnancy. That means that even if these doctors were to offer a large dose of purple Skittles, they’d appear to have ‘worked’ to ‘save’ the pregnancy about half the time. Those numbers are consistent with what these people are reporting.”

“[The abortion pill] binds much more tightly to the progesterone receptor, to block it than progesterone itself does…. So there really is not much evidence to indicate, I’m really not aware of anything, that by increasing the amount of progesterone you’re gonna somehow block the effect of this drug….

I think this is really outside of standard of care to just begin doing this kind of treatment, without collecting more rigorous studies about its effectiveness.”

Note: The function of mifepristone is to block progesterone receptors (which is why, in an abortion pill reversal, an extra injection of progesterone is given to counteract these effects). Mifepristone “directly causes endometrial decidual degeneration, cervical softening and dilatation, release of endogenous prostaglandins, and an increase in the sensitivity of the myometrium to the contractile effects of prostaglandins. Mifepristone-induced decidual breakdown indirectly leads to trophoblast detachment, resulting in decreased syncytiotrophoblast production of hCG, which in turn causes decreased production of progesterone by the corpus luteum (pregnancy is dependent on progesterone production by the corpus luteum through the first 9 weeks of gestation—until placental progesterone production has increased enough to take the place of corpus luteum progesterone production).”